ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2023
Retrograde stent with external string for pediatric robotic pyeloplasty: does it reduce cost and complications?
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric ureteral stenting: state-of-the-art review.World journal of urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) is a mainstay in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in children. At our institution, to limit planned operating rooms visits we have placed a ureteral stent with an external string (SWES) immediately prior to RAP. In this study, we sought to quantify the operative time, complications, and costs associated with this approach compared to the traditional approach, requiring subsequent stent removal in the operating room. We hypothesized the SWES cohort would have decreased cost, yet with similar operative time and complications. We retrospectively collected all RAPs performed at our institution using the SWES approach (Aug 2012-July 2017). We excluded those with a redo pyeloplasty, and/or a percutaneous nephrostomy tube for post-operative drainage. We collected 30-day costs linked to the patients' MRN using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. We compared 30-day healthare costs for all patients following RAP. We compared our SWES group to a national cohort of all pediatric RAP during the same time period. Lastly, we sent an anonymous, electronic survey to urologists of all PHIS institutions to identify the predominant postoperative drainage, nationally. Within our institution, we reviewed all those treated with SWES (n = 85) (Table 1). The median 30-day cost was $10,548 among those with SWES (Table 2). This was significantly less than the overall, national cohort of all pediatric RAP during the same period ($14,119, p < 0.001). There was a 15.5 % rate of unplanned return to the hospital in the SWES group. Of those unplanned returns, 8.2 % (7/85) had unplanned return for a procedure (3 for unplanned stent removal, 2 for nephrostomy tube for persistent obstruction, 1 for omental hernia, and 1 for stent replacement). With a 42.5 % (37/87) response rate, our nationwide survey found 84.6 % primarily leave stents WITHOUT a string, 7.7 % left nephrostomy tubes, and 7.7 % stents with strings. During pediatric RAP, placement of a SWES takes little time, carries a risk of unplanned visit to the operating room, saves the patient a certain, second anesthetic for stent removal, and amounts to a cost savings of approximately 25 %.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.